Answering the brief?

[Sulman]

I don't think that Pirelli has been able to replicate Canada 2010 very accurately, if that is the question. But I don't think that the goal was to replicate Canada 2010 accurately in every aspect.

This is finally the crux (I was awaiting for someone else to give it - thanks) and where Pirelli have failed hugely in their communication (among other recent glaring examples). All this time they've always had a very short, sharp answer as to what they we're asked to do - Canada 2010. If based solely on that, then Pirelli get a C, maybe even a D+, depending on how harsh you are.

But, as Stradivarius points out - was it to replicate in every respect? Who knows! We've never been told, have we? At no stage has anyone ever come out and stated, for example "close to Canada 2010 - we liked the way the tyres went off, but we're going to approach it from another direction, and ensure that any gains made by the teams are reset each year" - I sure as heck have not heard or seen anything to that extent. Even more - if Pirelli actually said that from the start - how many teams would have actually subscribed? If the Teams, FOM and the FIA were told to that level of what to expect - why weren't we? No one ever mentioned anything about changes tyres each year - for example.

So this is about setting expectations, managing expectations, transparency, communication and generally being seen as trustworthy.

When it comes to answering a brief - ambiguity, round numbers and grey areas only open you up to criticism. Until we see the exact brief - all we're left with to compare with is "Canada 2010".

Edit: typos

That may have been the extent of it, my friend. Ecclestone may just have said "Spice it up, like Montreal 2010." We're technically minded, so we're looking for hard data. There probably isn't any!

[Cam]

That may have been the extent of it, my friend. Ecclestone may just have said "Spice it up, like Montreal 2010." We're technically minded, so we're looking for hard data. There probably isn't any!

Well, there should be. I'm sure Pirelli got a document with an outline of its objectives - you don't sign up to be a major supplier without knowing the full scope of what you need to do - and part of this could include specification suggestions for the tyres - including any changes required each year to year etc.

If we had that doc - this speculation ends.

We don't, so we're left to dissecting Hembreys words. If we had better communication from Pirelli, the speculation won't end, but it'll be nowhere near as severe as it has been. A media statement with a direct quote, is technically good enough for me.

[Stradivarius]

There is many things we can say about the Pirelli tyres, and I think it wouldn't be too hard to fix some of the "problems" that we have seen until now. But then we might face other problems. As I said before, I think the main concern has been to avoid processional races, which we did see a lot of with Bridgestone, because their main focus was durability. All the dry races in 2010 were 1 stop, and in most of them, the stop was made only because the rules requires everyone to do at least one. We often saw the drivers drive most of the race on the same set of tyres and the most extreme examples are Vettel at Monza, who qualified and ran 52 of 53 laps on the same tyres. He then pitted with one lap to go just because the rules required him to.

In the final race of 2010, the safety car came out on the first lap and some drivers went into the pits right away, after 1 single lap of the race. Among these were Petrov and Rosberg. They never pited again and finished the race ahead of championship contender Alonso, which actually made the difference for Vettel. I have no intention of saying that it wasn't well deserved, or that Ferrari didn't deserve to pay for their stupid strategic blunder, but it is understandable that most people don't want the races to be more or less decided after just a few laps. This is one of the special things about Canada 2010. The race wasn't decided after just a few laps and the winner did more than one stop. All the other dry races in 2010 were one stop.

[tinhouse]

Can anyone tell me why you people didn't complain about Pirelli in 2011-12? The drivers were already below the absolute limit to preserve tires even in 2010 , actually.

In short no. But I agree with you and this is the crux of the issue as far as I'm concerned. As has already been said, in other threads if not here, drivers have always had to drive to what the tyres will allow.

Let's go back to the Button quote from Canada 2010 provided by Cam earlier in this thread:

Button: You are never sure if you are looking after the tyres enough or if you are pushing enough. It was not just a race about being flat every lap. You had to really think about every situation. If you watch the race certain people were very quick at certain parts of the race.

This, for me, is what F1 is about. Not about thrashing the hell out of the car for lap after lap, but driving that requires intelligence and self-discpline. As you might be able to tell I'm old enough to have been a Prost fanboy in the past. Back in those days of no refuelling and no tyre changes he just had a way of finding the balance between keeping his tyres on but staying close enough to the front to pounce when the drivers who scampered off in the early laps found themselves with no grip at the end.

So for me the problem with the Pirellis this year is that they don't provide that spark. Even the drivers you'd expect to be revelling in the tyre conservation challenge are complaining that they fall off the cliff whatever you do.

Drivers managing tyres is one thing but this year it's gone too far and the tyres seem to be managing the drivers. I can't pretend to put my finger on why exactly, but I wish it would stop.

Matt.

[Edit for quote formatting]